[2024] KEELC 1701 (KLR)

Seventh Day Adventist Church EA Ltd v Isoge FCS Ltd (Environment & Land Case 42 of 2021) [2024] KEELC 1701 (KLR) (14 March 2024) (Ruling)

Neutral citation: [2024] KEELC 1701 (KLR)

Republic of Kenya

In the Environment and Land Court at Nyamira

Environment & Land Case 42 of 2021

JM Kamau, J

March 14, 2024

(Former at Kisii Environment and Land Court Case No.598 of 2016)

Between

Seventh Day Adventist Church Ea Ltd

Plaintiff

and

Isoge FCS Ltd

Respondent

Ruling

1. By an Application dated 12/10/2023, the Plaintiff /Judgment Debtor sought the intervention of this Court to set aside, review and/or vary its Judgment dated 21/10/2021 on almost no Grounds at all on the face of the Application. This must have been occasioned by the omnibus prayers in the Application that concentrated on the Grounds for leave for a new Advocate to come on record. In fact, the only Ground advanced for the prayer on Review is that serious orders have been issued against the Plaintiff without full evidence to prove the issues alleged against it and it is necessary that the same be allowed to change Advocates so it can adequately be represented as by law required. Again, this is not a Ground for Review.

2. Even the reasons advanced and explained in the annexed Affidavit in support of the Application sworn on even date have no relevance at all to the Application before the Court.

3. The Plaintiff Applicant further supported the said Application vide her “Replying Affidavit” sworn on 8/2/2024 and filed the following day through one of her members, Mary Bogomba Omari where she deponed that she is also a member of the Applicant but that the two are separate entities. The same has nothing of importance to the current Application and only talks of the fact that the Judgment was a product of misleading information and that their views were not properly canvassed in Court. She also explained that there have been leadership wrangles within the Respondent.

4. Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Act Cap 21 provides as follows: -Any person who considers himself aggrieved—a.by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed by this Act, but from which no appeal has been preferred; orb.by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed by this Act,may apply for a review of judgment to the court which passed the decree or made the order, and the court may make such order thereon as it thinks fit.”

5. Order 45 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010 provides as follows: -1. (1)Any person considering himself aggrieved—a.by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed, but from which no appeal has been preferred; orb.by a decree or order from which no appeal is hereby allowed, and who from the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed or the order made, or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or for any other sufficient reason, desires to obtain a review of the decree or order, may apply for a review of judgment to the court which passed the decree or made the order without unreasonable delay.”

6. In Republic v Public Procurement Administrative Review Board & 2 others [2018] eKLR it was held: -Section 80 gives the power of review and Order 45 sets out the rules. The rules restrict the grounds for review. The rules lay down the jurisdiction and scope of review limiting it to the following grounds; (a) discovery of new and important matter or evidence which after the exercise of due diligence, was not within the knowledge of the applicant or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed or the order made or; (b) on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or (c) for any other sufficient reason and whatever the ground there is a requirement that the application has to be made without unreasonable delay.”

7. In Pancras T. Swai v Kenya Breweries Limited [2014] eKLR the Court of Appeal held:-Order 44 rule 1 (now Order 45 rule 1 in the 2010 Civil Procedure Rules) gave the trial Court discretionary power to allow review on the three limps therein stated or “for any sufficient reason……………………….”

8. In Sarder Mohamed v. Charan Singh Nand Sing and Another (1959) EA 793 the High Court held that Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Act conferred an unfettered discretion in the Court to make such order as it thinks fit on review and that the omission of any qualifying words in the Section was deliberate.

9. Discussing the scope of Review, the Supreme Court of India in the case of Ajit Kumar Rath vs State of Orisa & Others, 9 Supreme Court Cases 596 at Page 608. had this to say:-the power can be exercised on the application of a person on the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the order was made. The power can also be exercised on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record or for any other sufficient reason. A review cannot be claimed or asked merely for a fresh hearing or arguments or correction of an erroneous view taken earlier, that is to say, the power of review can be exercised only for correction of a patent error of law or fact which stares in the face without any elaborate argument being needed for stabling it. It may be pointed out that the expression “any other sufficient reason” ............... means a reason sufficiently analogous to those specified in the rule”

10. In Tokesi Mambili and others vs Simion Litsanga the Court held as follows:-i.In order to obtain a review an applicant has to show to the satisfaction of the court that there has been discovery of new and important matter or evidence which was not within his knowledge or could not be produced at the time when the order to be reviewed was made. An applicant may have to show that there was a mistake or error apparent on the face of the record or for any other sufficient reason.ii.Where the application is based on sufficient reason it is for the Court to exercise its discretion.

11. In Republic v Advocates Disciplinary Tribunal Ex parte Apollo Mboya [2019] eKLR High Court of Kenya Nairobi Judicial Review Division Misc. Application No. 317 of 2018 John M. Mativo Judge culled out the following principles from a number of authorities: -i.A court can review its decision on either of the grounds enumerated in Order 45 Rule 1 and not otherwise.ii.The expression "any other sufficient reason" appearing in Order 45 Rule 1 has to be interpreted in the light of other specified grounds.iii.An error which is not self-evident and which can be discovered by a long process of reasoning cannot be treated as an error apparent on the face of record justifying exercise of power under Section 80. iv.An erroneous order/decision cannot be corrected in the guise of exercise of power of review.v.A decision/order cannot be reviewed under Section 80 on the basis of subsequent decision/judgment of a coordinate or larger Bench of the tribunal or of a superior court.vi.While considering an application for review, the court must confine its adjudication with reference to material, which was available at the time of initial decision. The happening of some subsequent event or development cannot be taken note of for declaring the initial order/decision as vitiated by an error apparent.vii.Mere discovery of new or important matter or evidence is not sufficient ground for review. The party seeking review has also to show that such matter or evidence was not within its knowledge and even after the exercise of due diligence, the same could not be produced before the court/tribunal earlier.viii.A mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record means a mistake or an error, which is prima-facie visible and does not require any detail examination. In the present case the petitioner has not been able to point out any error apparent on the face of the record.ix.Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code provides for a substantive power of review by a civil court and consequently by the appellate courts. The words occurring in Section 80 mean subject to such conditions and limitations as may be prescribed thereof and for the said purpose, the procedural conditions contained in Order 45 Rule 1 must be taken into consideration. Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code does not prescribe any limitation on the power of the court, but such limitations have been provided for in Order 45 Rule 1. x.The power of a civil court to review its judgment/decision is traceable in Section 80 CPC. The grounds on which review can be sought are enumerated in Order 45 Rule 1.

12. The case here is that of negligence and not one of discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within the Plaintiff’s knowledge.

13. The Application could also not pass the Test of:…………….or for any other sufficient reason…………….”which reasons leading authorities hold must be analogous to the other grounds mentioned under the Act and Rules, a reason sufficiently analogous to those specified in the Rule”

14. In the case of Evan Bwire V Andrew Aginda Civil Appeal No. 147 of 2006 cited fin the case of Stephen Githua Kimani V Nancy Wanjira Waruingi T/A Providence Auctioneers (2016) eKLR the Court of Appeal held as follows:An application for review will only be allowed on strong grounds particularly if its effect will amount to re-opening the application or case afresh. In other words, I find no material before me to demonstrate that the applicant has demonstrated the existence of new evidence which he could not get even after exercising due diligence.”

15. The current Application falls under the above category. The effect of allowing it would amount to re-opening the case afresh. Litigation must come to an end. Parties must present all the facts, documents and evidence in Court at the appropriate time before the Court retires to write its Judgment. Time and time again Courts have advised litigants that they are bound by their pleadings and that you do not prosecute your case piecemeal. What is demonstrated by the Application is a case of poor pleading when bringing the case to Court which is not what was envisaged by Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Act nor the Rules under Order 45 of the Civil Procedure Rules.

16. Finally, the Application is irregularly in Court since an Applicant in an Application for Review ought to have annexed a formal extracted Decree or order in respect of which the review is sought.

17. In the case of Suleiman Murunga V Nilestar Holdings Limited & Another (2015) eKLR the court held as follows:The plain reading of the above provision (referring to Order 45 Rule 1) is that an applicant for review ought to have annexed a formal extracted decree or order in respect of which the review is sought. In essence, judgment or ruling. Thus, where an applicant fails to annex the order sought to be reviewed, an application is defective. In the present application the order that the Defendants sought to be reviewed was not annexed with the result that the Defendant’s application was fatally defective. I agree that a formal decree or order is a pre-requisite before an applicant can bring himself/herself within the ambit of order 45 of the Civil Procedure Rules as relates to review of the decree or order”

18. Save a copy of the Judgment, no such a Decree was attached to the present Application which makes the Application fatally defective.

19. A case which went through the entire motion of preparing pleadings, interrogatories, trial conference and Hearing such as in this one cannot be reviewed by the same Court which had adjudicated upon it. If that were to be allowed, it would set a very unsustainable precedence.

20. Having said so, the remaining duty is to dismiss the Defendant’s/Applicant’s Application dated 12/10/2023 with costs. A duty that I hereby discharge.

RULING DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT NYAMIRA THIS 14TH DAY OF MARCH 2024. MUGO KAMAUJUDGEIn the Presence of: -Court Assistant: - BrendaPlaintiff’s Counsel - Mr. OmwoyoDefendants’ Counsel - Mr. Soire